Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bohan v. Ritzo | 679 A.2d 597 (N.H.,1996) | 141 N.H. 210 (N.H.,1996) |
In this New Hampshire case, a bicyclist brought suit against a dog owner under the state's strict liability statute for injuries he sustained when he fell from his bike after the owners' dog ran toward him. The jury awarded him $190,000 at trial. On appeal, this court found that the bicyclist's allegations were sufficient to sustain the jury's finding even though there was no evidence that the dog actually bit the plaintiff or made any physical contact. The Court held that there is nothing in the plain language of RSA 466:19 that would limit the statute's application actual bites or other direct physical contact. Instead, the statute makes dog owners strictly liable to “[a]ny person to whom ... damage may be occasioned by a dog not owned or kept by him.” RSA 466:19. |
Case |
| CA - Hunting - § 3511. Fully protected birds; permits or licenses; necessary scientific research; legal imports; | West's Ann. Cal. Fish & G. Code § 3511 | CA FISH & G § 3511 | California law specifically states that no other statutes are to be construed to allow the taking of state protected birds, of which the golden eagle and bald eagle are listed, and any licenses issued to take protected birds are void unless issued for scientific or depredation purposes. | Statute |
| Dempsey v. Rosenthal | 121 Misc.2d 612 (N.Y. 1983) | 468 N.Y.S.2d 441, 37 UCC Rep.Serv. 1091 |
A buyer of a poodle brought an action against a kennel, seeking to recover purchase price on ground that poodle was "defective" due to an undescended testicle. The buyer argued that the kennel had breached implied warranty of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. The Civil Court of the City of New York held that since the contract of sale did not exclude or modify implied warranty of merchantability, it carried with it such a warranty. In light of this, the poodle was not a merchantable good because a poodle with an undescended testicle would not pass without objection in the trade. Further, the kennel breached the warranty of fitness for a particular purpose since the kennel was aware that the buyer wanted a dog for breeding purposes. This case is also significant because the court also held that a buyer's opportunity to examine the dog when purchasing it does not defeat a warranty claim. Indeed, the type of examination would not be undertaken by a casual buyer of a male puppy. The court allowed buyer to revoke her acceptance of the dog and receive her purchase price. |
Case |
| GA - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Laws | Ga. Code Ann., § 16-12-4, § 16-6-6 | GA ST § 16-12-4; § 16-6-6 | This comprises Georgia's anti-cruelty provisions. Under the statute, "animal" does not include any fish or any pest that might be exterminated or removed. A person commits the offense of cruelty to animals when he or she causes death or unjustifiable physical pain or suffering to any animal by an act, an omission, or willful neglect. Any person convicted of a violation of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, but subsequent convictions incur enhanced penalties. A person commits the offense of aggravated cruelty to animals when he or she knowingly and maliciously causes death or physical harm to an animal by rendering a part of such animal's body useless or by seriously disfiguring such animal. | Statute |
| FL - Sharks - 379.2426. Possession of separated shark fins on the water prohibited; penalties | West's F.S.A. § 379.2426 | This Florida law prohibits a person from possessing in or on the waters a shark fin that has been separated from a shark or land a separated shark fin unless possession is authorized by a commission rule or such fin has been lawfully obtained on land, prepared by taxidermy, and is possessed for the purposes of display. A first-time violation is a misdemeanor of the second degree, which includes a fine of up to $4,500 and suspension of license privileges for 180 days. Subsequent violations result in enhanced penalties. | Statute | |
| Allen v. Camp | 70 So. 290 (Ala.App. 1915) | 14 Ala.App. 341 (1915) |
Defendant shot and killed Plaintiff's dog, which had bitten Defendant's daughter several days earlier, for the purpose of sending the dog's head to a laboratory for examination for rabies. The Court of Appeals of Alabama found that Plaintiff's wife's injuries were too remote to be compensable, when the wife was not home at the time of the incident and became excited and hysterical upon hearing of the incident several hours later. The Appeals Court also held that although one may protect himself or his family from injury by a dog or other animal when on his own private property or on public property, the destruction of an animal is wrongful when the danger of attack and subsequent injury by that animal no longer exists, and where the animal is not trespassing. |
Case |
| Sentencia C-889, 2012 | Sentencia C-889/12 | Decision C-889 grants constitutional value to animal protection. It establishes the parameters for tradition and social roots. It limits the scope of bullfighting in the national territory. On this opportunity, the court decided on the constitutionality of Arts. 14 and 15 of the statute of Bullfighting Statute. It establishes the criteria that must be met in order for bullfighting to be legal: (1) Bullfighting has to meet the legal conditions established for public shows in general; (2) Bullfighting must meet the legal conditions established in the statute that regulates the taurine activity, Ley 916 of 2014; and (3) Bullfighting must comply with the constitutional conditions, restrictions, and limitations established in decision C-666 of 2010 to satisfy the mandate of animal welfare, animal protection, and to avoid suffering and pain. It must also satisfy social ingrain, location, opportunity, the condition of no financial funds, and exceptionality. | Case | |
| WI - Dog, licenses - Chapter 174. Dogs. 174.06. Listing | W. S. A. 174.06 | WI ST 174.06 | This Wisconsin statute provides that every town, village and city shall annually, by September 1, ascertain by diligent inquiry the dogs owned or kept within the assessment district. The listing official shall enter in the records for personal property assessments, or in a separate record, all dogs in the district subject to tax, to whom they are assessed, the name, number, sex, spayed or unspayed, neutered or unneutered, breed and color of each dog. | Statute |
| PA - Rabies - Chapter 7A. Rabies Prevention and Control in Domestic Animals and Wildlife Act | 3 P.S. § 455.1 - 15 | PA ST 3 P.S. § 455.1 - 15 | This chapter is known as the Rabies Prevention and Control in Domestic Animals and Wildlife Act. Every person living in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, who owns or keeps a dog or cat over three months of age, must have that dog or cat to be vaccinated against rabies. A person who violates any provision of this act commits a summary offense and shall, upon conviction, be sentenced to pay a fine not exceeding $300 for each violation. Each day of violation constitutes a separate offense. | Statute |
| UK - Farming - UK General Welfare of Farmed Animals Regs. 2000 | Statutory Instrument 2000 No. 1870 |
For historical purposes only. Law has been repealed and/or replaced. The UK's general animal welfare legislation affecting any animal (including fish, reptiles or amphibians) bred or kept for the production of food, wool, skin or fur or for other farming purposes. |
Statute |